Diversity Of Citizenship

615 Florida cases classified under this topic, plus 389 listed through its narrower topics · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Hunt Tool Co. v. Moore, Inc.
  212 F.2d 685· 5th Cir.· 1954-05-06 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the intervention was permissive under Rule 24(b)(2) and that the intervener cured the jurisdictional defect by dismissing non-diverse defendants, thus the district court had jurisdiction.
• Dep't of Highways of La. v. Morse Bros. & Assocs., Inc.
  211 F.2d 140· 5th Cir.· 1954-03-12 ·cited 16×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The Department of Highways, despite not being a true corporation, possesses sufficient corporate-like attributes and powers, including the ability to sue and be sued, to be considered a citizen for federal diversity jurisdiction. Furthermore, a formal putting in default was not r
• Gallagher v. Philadelphia Transp. Co.
  185 F.2d 543· 3d Cir.· 1950-12-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court applied an incorrect legal standard for determining domicile and made a clearly erroneous finding of fact regarding the plaintiff's intent to return to Pennsylvania.
• Riley v. Union Pac. R. Co.
  177 F.2d 673· 7th Cir.· 1949-10-04 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the district court did not err in denying the plaintiff's motion to transfer the case and in dismissing the complaint.
• Johnson v. Middleton
  175 F.2d 535· 7th Cir.· 1949-06-30 ·cited 16×
  The court held that Bishop Kelly was an indispensable party, and his citizenship with that of some plaintiffs destroyed diversity jurisdiction, requiring dismissal.
• Indem. Ins. Co. of N. Am. v. Kellas
  173 F.2d 120· 1st Cir.· 1949-03-04 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the dismissal of the declaratory judgment complaint, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction.
• Am. Chem. Paint Co. v. Dow Chem. Co.
  161 F.2d 956· 6th Cir.· 1947-05-26 ·cited 16×
  The court held that a declaratory judgment action challenging patent validity is not a suit for patent infringement, and thus venue is governed by the general civil venue statute, not the specific patent infringement venue statute.
• Peck v. Shell OIL Co., Inc.
  142 F.2d 141· 9th Cir.· 1944-04-15 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the license agreement was unenforceable due to failure of consideration and that no confidential disclosures were violated.
• Lopata v. Handler
  121 F.2d 938· 10th Cir.· 1941-07-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the plaintiffs waived their right to remand the case to state court by failing to object and proceeding to trial, and that the appeal should be dismissed due to procedural defects.
• Gus Poulos and A.G.P. Marketing v. Naas Foods
  959 F.2d 69· 7th Cir.· 1992-03-18 ·cited 15×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction, did not err in compelling the production of tax returns, and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case.
• In re Sch. Asbestos Litig. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. v. The Honorable James McGirr Kelly
  921 F.2d 1310· 3d Cir.· 1990-12-13 ·cited 15×·via Complete Diversity Rule
  The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and therefore, their petitions for writs of mandamus and prohibition were denied.
• Silkwood v. Kerr-McGEE Corp.
  769 F.2d 1451· 10th Cir.· 1985-07-31 ·cited 15×·via Diversity Suit
  The court held that the punitive damages award was not preempted by federal law and was supported by evidence of Kerr-McGee's reckless disregard for public safety, and that the Workers' Compensation Act did not bar consideration of evidence of personal injury in assessing punitiv
• Plechner v. Widener Coll., Inc.
  569 F.2d 1250· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-28 ·cited 15×
  The court affirmed the district court's judgment, holding that the affiliation procedures were proper under Delaware law and that the plaintiffs were not entitled to a jury trial.
• Va. Elec. & Power Co. v. Carolina Peanut Co.
  186 F.2d 816· 4th Cir.· 1951-02-03 ·cited 15×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of negligence and that the insurance company should have been allowed to intervene to recover its proportionate share of the damages.
• Dwinell-Wright Co. v. Nat'l Fruit Prod. Co., Inc.
  129 F.2d 848· 1st Cir.· 1942-07-16 ·cited 15×
  A district court may enjoin a party from prosecuting a trademark cancellation proceeding before the Patent Office when the validity of the trademark is already at issue in a pending federal court action between the same parties.
• Est. of Jackson v. Ventas Realty
  812 F. Supp. 2d 1306· M.D. Fla.· 2011-09-12 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A Florida statutory supplemental proceeding under Section 56.29 to enforce a state court judgment is not a "civil action" removable to federal court because it is an ancillary continuation of the original state court action and federal courts lack original jurisdiction over such
• Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. for Manning Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Ticktin
  832 F.2d 1438· 7th Cir.· 1987-11-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the proviso in 12 U.S.C. § 1730(k)(l) limits federal jurisdiction even when the FSLIC is a plaintiff and the case involves federal law, as long as the core dispute concerns state law rights and obligations of the institution.
• Panalpina Welttransport GMBH v. Geosource, Inc.
  764 F.2d 352· 5th Cir.· 1985-06-28 ·cited 14×
  The alter ego doctrine cannot be used to preserve diversity jurisdiction by ignoring a subsidiary's place of incorporation when that would create diversity.
• Kevin Gross for Hougland Barge Line, Inc. v. Hougland
  712 F.2d 1034· 6th Cir.· 1983-07-11 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a receiver appointed under Delaware law, could rely on his own citizenship for diversity jurisdiction, and that the Kentucky statute of limitations did not bar the action because the claim arose after dissolution.
• NEW York Life Ins. Co. v. Conn. Dev. Auth. & Minority Equity Cap. Corp.
  700 F.2d 91· 2d Cir.· 1983-02-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the judgment was appropriate in determining the rights to the cash surrender value of the insurance policies and New York Life's liability to pay it, but remanded for clarification regarding Sterling's consent to the extinguishment of his tort claims.
• Levy v. Weissman
  671 F.2d 766· 3d Cir.· 1982-02-23 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A writ of mandamus will be granted to vacate a district court's order remanding a properly removed case to state court solely as a sanction for the petitioner's failure to comply with a local rule or a court order.
• United States v. Gustav Wahl
  583 F.2d 285· 6th Cir.· 1978-09-14 ·cited 14×
  Literal compliance with Rule 3, F.R.Civ.P., by filing a complaint is sufficient to interrupt the running of a federal statute of limitations, even if service of process is delayed.
• Bossom v. Bossom
  551 F.2d 474· 2d Cir.· 1976-12-17 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that federal courts should decline jurisdiction in domestic relations cases that are "on the verge" of the matrimonial exception, especially when state courts are better equipped to handle them.
• Mrs. Gertwyl Amakyi Gamble v. Cent. OF Ga. Ry. Co.
  486 F.2d 781· 5th Cir.· 1973-10-23 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA) cases, which are explicitly made non-removable by statute, cannot be removed to federal court even when joined with a removable third-party claim.
• Whitelock v. Delbert Leatherman
  460 F.2d 507· 10th Cir.· 1972-05-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in ordering specific performance of the agreement to assign mining leases, but affirmed conditionally due to a jurisdictional defect.
• Sandobal v. Armour & Co.
  429 F.2d 249· 8th Cir.· 1970-07-13 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an action for wrongful discharge under a collective bargaining agreement is governed by the statute of limitations for written contracts, not oral contracts. The court also found that laches was inapplicable, that factual issues precluded summary judgment on f
• Ortman v. Stanray Corp.
  371 F.2d 154· 7th Cir.· 1967-01-03 ·cited 14×
  The district court had diversity jurisdiction to adjudicate claims for infringement of foreign patents.
• Julien v. Sarkes Tarzian, Inc.
  352 F.2d 845· 7th Cir.· 1965-10-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish diversity jurisdiction because she did not prove she was a citizen of a state different from the defendants at the time the suit was filed.
• Upper Miss. Towing Corp. v. West
  338 F.2d 823· 8th Cir.· 1964-12-08 ·cited 14×
  The court held that an order denying a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss a complaint is not a final decision and is not appealable as an interlocutory injunction, as it does not affect substantive rights.
• Int'l Ass'n of MacHinists v. E. Airlines, Inc.
  320 F.2d 451· 5th Cir.· 1963-07-18 ·cited 14×
  The court held that alleged violations of the collective bargaining agreement, including cancellation of vacations and extension of work weeks, constitute minor disputes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board of Adjustment. A claim for damages for breach of contrac
• Burkhardt v. Bates
  296 F.2d 315· 8th Cir.· 1961-11-30 ·cited 14×
  The court affirmed the dismissal, agreeing with the lower court's determination that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations after the jurisdictional defect was cured.
• Blanche Sykes v. United States
  290 F.2d 555· 9th Cir.· 1961-04-03 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in dismissing the case for lack of prosecution, as the delay was only slightly over six months and there was no intent to abandon the case.
• Seideman v. Anne Hamilton
  275 F.2d 224· 3d Cir.· 1960-02-17 ·cited 14×·via Citizenship For Diversity Purposes
  The court held that the trial court did not err in refusing to submit the question of diversity to a jury and in concluding there was a lack of diversity jurisdiction.
• Randolph v. Emp'rs Mut. Liab. Ins. Co. OF Wis. Garnishee
  260 F.2d 461· 8th Cir.· 1958-11-03 ·cited 14×
  The court held that a post-judgment garnishment proceeding is a civil action removable to federal court under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(a) if diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount are met, and that the trial court did not err in admitting evidence or overruling the motion f
• Kaufman v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.
  245 F.2d 918· 3d Cir.· 1957-07-03 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  A stipulation by parties to establish federal jurisdiction based on the amount in controversy is insufficient if the jurisdictional prerequisite is denied and not otherwise proven.
• Fitzgerald v. Haynes
  241 F.2d 417· 3d Cir.· 1957-02-15 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the absent local unions were indispensable parties, and thus the district court did not err in dismissing the complaint.
• Walker v. Felmont OIL Corp.
  240 F.2d 912· 6th Cir.· 1957-02-12 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the case should be remanded to the District Court to address jurisdictional issues, including Eleventh Amendment immunity and diversity of citizenship, before considering the merits of the state law questions.
• Shall v. Henry
  211 F.2d 226· 7th Cir.· 1954-03-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court properly dismissed the suit because it lacked jurisdiction due to improper venue and because the antitrust claims were not applicable to professional boxing.
• Chicago Great W. Ry. Co. v. Chicago
  193 F.2d 975· 8th Cir.· 1952-02-05 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the District Court had jurisdiction to issue a preliminary injunction requiring a railroad to provide switching service, even on intrastate traffic, when a substantial federal question was presented.
• Paudler v. Paudler
  185 F.2d 901· 5th Cir.· 1950-12-21 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the plaintiff had established citizenship in Arkansas, conferring diversity jurisdiction.
• Peters v. Standard Oil Co. of Tex.
  174 F.2d 162· 5th Cir.· 1949-05-04 ·cited 14×·via Federal Diversity Jurisdiction
  The court held that the federal district court had jurisdiction to remove the case from state court and did not err in granting a preliminary injunction to protect that jurisdiction.
• Hann v. City OF Clinton
  131 F.2d 978· 10th Cir.· 1942-11-17 ·cited 14×
  The court held that diversity of citizenship existed and the amount in controversy was sufficient for federal jurisdiction, and that the actions were not barred by limitations or res judicata.
• Douglas v. City OF Jeannette
  130 F.2d 652· 3d Cir.· 1942-08-31 ·cited 14×
  The dissenting judge would reverse the lower court's decree and remand with directions to dismiss the complaint for want of jurisdiction.
• Md. Cas. Co. v. Faulkner
  126 F.2d 175· 6th Cir.· 1942-03-02 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the district court erred in dismissing the insurer's petition for declaratory relief, as the insurer had a right to seek such relief to determine its policy obligations.
• N. Am. Watch Corp. v. Princess Ermine Jewels
  786 F.2d 1447· 9th Cir.· 1986-04-15 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court properly exercised diversity jurisdiction and did not abuse its discretion in dismissing counterclaims as a sanction for willful discovery violations.
• Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co.
  770 F.2d 26· 3d Cir.· 1985-08-08 ·cited 13×
  The court held that federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking at the time of removal due to the joinder of Doe defendants, requiring vacation of the judgment and remand to state court.
• Adams v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp.
  597 F.2d 570· 5th Cir.· 1979-06-22 ·cited 13×
  The court held that Florida law does not permit an attorney to retain funds from a client in excess of the attorney's claimed amount.
• Clark v. Gulf OIL Corp. & Tex. E. Transmission Corp. Theodore Q. Thompson & Jamestown Vill. Apts., Ltd.
  570 F.2d 1138· 3d Cir.· 1977-12-30 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the district court had federal subject matter jurisdiction, but that no private cause of action for damages is implied under the Natural Gas Act for a producer's failure to comply with a certificate of public convenience and necessity.
• Ned G. Saalfrank v. Melva M. O'Daniel
  533 F.2d 325· 6th Cir.· 1976-04-14 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a federal court lacks ancillary jurisdiction to hear a direct claim by a plaintiff against a non-diverse third-party defendant when the sole basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship.
• Hanraty v. Ostertag
  470 F.2d 1096· 10th Cir.· 1972-12-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that the complaint stated a claim under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and that the federal court had pendent jurisdiction over the state law claims.